3 ms·

> Of course the former alone on its face is reprehensible {...} Can you elaborate on why?

• elif 4y ago
  Why apartheid is reprehensible? No I don't think I have to explain that one...
  • alldayeveryday 4y ago
    "On its face" is commonly used when a person does not have the capacity to explain something. I see this is the case here. Further, your invocation of "apartheid" is a straw man.
    • elif 4y ago
      How do you distinguish "deliberately monoethnic" from "apartheid" OR When is monoethnic team building praiseworthy? There's two options for you. I hope the form of my rebuttal is acceptable.
      • alldayeveryday 4y ago
        > When is monoethnic team building praiseworthy? The fact that a team is monoethnic is in itself not necessarily a good or bad, and thus not in itself "praiseworthy" - and yet people are constantly praised for building non-monoethnic teams as if that is a good in itself. A team should be measured by their meeting of objectives/goals rather than on their ethnic makeup. Basically I think it comes down to freedom of association. > How do you distinguish "deliberately monoethnic" from "apartheid" Apartheid is characterized by for example withholding of human rights from a group based on race. Being hired onto a specific team is not a human right. Building a "deliberately monoethnic" team is distinguished from an "apartheid" in that the former is not withholding of human rights from a group based on race. I would argue that freedom of association is a human right - one which is being withheld from those particularly in the west.